Good idea, but it will never happen. Even if it does, I see nothing that will prevent the federal government to bring them back, kicking and screaming, at the point of a gun, only to have the ringleaders tried on charges of treason and terrorism.

As bad as it sounds, this may be what the country needs. Like the one guy said on the news, the Empire is collapsing. Maybe this could wake a few sheep up?

I've been thinking that the country is too big for years. The 2000 election was practically a repeat of the 1860 election. Just as Lincoln won the presidency without carrying a single southern state, Bush won the presidency without carrying a northern or west coast state, save New Hampshire. It was another case of regional parties that had nothing in common with a large percentage of the population. In the case of the 2000 election, that was slightly more than half the country. In the 1860 election, this result led to seven states deciding that they would no longer receive just, equal treatment at the hands of a lopsided federal government, causing their exit. If it was not for slavery, Britain and France would never have allowed Lincoln to force them back.

We would do better as several smaller countries. Let the south have their religious theocracy. I really couldn't care less. I care insomuch as it effects my rights, and that would not be possible if they lived in a different country. Historically, as a country, we're just as divided as we were in 1860, but the modern politician is far too timid to take so radical a course.

I find it sickeningly ironic how the tables have turned. Once, the northern states decried the moral reprehensibility southern states, while the southern states simply wished to be left alone to govern themselves as they saw fit. Now, it is the northern states that simply be wished to be left alone, while the southern states try to force their moral values on the entire country. It is a shame that slavery had to exist, because the civil war could have made a great point. Our system was designed with the states as the seat of power. Every state was allowed to govern itself as it saw fit. Sadly, the federal government now imposes it's tyrannical will upon the state governments, which is exactly the situation the founders sought to avoid. When is the last time a bill died in Congress because the majority of representatives felt it was overstepping the bounds of the federal government by abridging the rights of the states? We now live in a world where federal judges--political appointments who are not elected--routinely overturn the laws passed by state legislations and ballot referendums, showing the citizens of this county just who governs them.

Note: In no way am I comparing something as vile as slavery to the "moral" issues of our day (homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, etc), so please don't turn the discussion in that direction. Let's keep this strictly a Constitutional discussion.

You know, I just did some quick number crunching. It makes economic sense for Vermont to leave the union.

First, just general facts, for those of you who don't trust numbers - according to Wikipedia, Vermont has the lowest median income of all 50 states, yet the 14th highest tax burden, and highest as a percentage of per capita income. That sort of speaks for itself, but...

Vermont's population, according to Wikipedia, was 608,827 as of the last census. It's average per capita gross income is $38,306, which multiplied out gives us a taxable state gross income of $23,321,727,062.00, $23 billion and change.

So, according to the US Census web site, Vermont recieved $4,632,933,000 in federal funds in 2004, the year of the last census. As a percentage of state gross income, divided out that gives us 19.8%.

Or, in plain English, if you did away with the federal income tax (of around what, 32%?) because, well, you were no longer part of the federal union, the economic break-even point comes with a Republic of Vermont federal tax of just shy of 20%. Suceeding from the union would translate into either a real-world tax break of about 12%, or a state budget surplus of (assuming I didn't pull 32% out of my ass) 2.8 billion dollars, or approximately $4,650 per capita per year.

You know, I just did some quick number crunching. It makes economic sense for Vermont to leave the union.

First, just general facts, for those of you who don't trust numbers - according to Wikipedia, Vermont has the lowest median income of all 50 states, yet the 14th highest tax burden, and highest as a percentage of per capita income. That sort of speaks for itself, but...

Vermont's population, according to Wikipedia, was 608,827 as of the last census. It's average per capita gross income is $38,306, which multiplied out gives us a taxable state gross income of $23,321,727,062.00, $23 billion and change.

So, according to the US Census web site, Vermont recieved $4,632,933,000 in federal funds in 2004, the year of the last census. As a percentage of state gross income, divided out that gives us 19.8%.

Or, in plain English, if you did away with the federal income tax (of around what, 32%?) because, well, you were no longer part of the federal union, the economic break-even point comes with a Republic of Vermont federal tax of just shy of 20%. Suceeding from the union would translate into either a real-world tax break of about 12%, or a state budget surplus of (assuming I didn't pull 32% out of my ass) 2.8 billion dollars, or approximately $4,650 per capita per year.

Well, the math is sound. Whether or not I'm remembering the federal tax rate correctly, and whether or not the stats are still accurate is a different story.

Of course, it's not as clearcut as I'm making it out to be, especially since you'd pretty much HAVE to fund an army since the other 49 states would be up in arms, and that $3B surplus would buy like three Tomcats or something, but the basic mathematical figures show that it's more expensive for Vermont to stay in the union than to declare independance.

A peaceful sucession coupled with immediate diplomatic and trade ties to the USA could be a win-win, however, in that the 12% tax reduction would translate to about $5k per capita for each citizen of Vermont to spend on American services and goods, which would provide a potentially valuable trade relationship for the United States - hell, LL Bean stock would like triple overnight.

"...and everything under the sun is in tune, but the sun is eclipsed by the moon."

$5k per capita for each citizen of Vermont to spend on American services and goods, which would provide a potentially valuable trade relationship for the United States - hell, LL Bean stock would like triple overnight.

It only costs me 12% of my income to get rid of that patchouli stench?
Helladeal.

While the fiscal numbers make it look like a good deal for VT to get out of the union, the REALITY is much harsher.

- No more roads. Federal funding will stop. They will eventually revert back to two-track dirt. Enjoy that.
- No more US govt. at all. That means no protection from anyone. No military. And no National Guard in case of emergencies.
- No more FEMA, federal emergency aid, CIA/FBI, DOD, FDA......all gone. That's a good thing? Not really. Unemployment just went up 30% overnight.
- No voice. Who's going to listen to a bunch of whiners who just gave up?
- No more big business. I'm not talking about maple syrup either. Businesses won't go to a different "country", when they can avoid all the import/export hassles by putting a factory 2 miles away....with no ocean in the way.

If they don't like it here, build a hemp hang glider and float over to Canada. Better yet, sell your Birkenstock collection and all those 'Dead bootlegs and buy a plane ticket to another country.
Just make sure it's a one-way ticket.

If they don't like it here, build a hemp hang glider and float over to Canada. Better yet, sell your Birkenstock collection and all those 'Dead bootlegs and buy a plane ticket to another country.
Just make sure it's a one-way ticket.

There is no doubt that it is a bad move for one state to do it. Is it a bad move for, say ten or more states to do it? Not at all. And Kevan, when you say no more FEMA, I say where was FEMA in New Orleans?

I tire of the typical conservative macho bull.... response of, "Fine, let 'em leave, who needs 'em anyway?" What would the country do if a real revenue generating state, like California, left the union? How much tax revenue do you think California generates for the federal government? How many tech companies--not just computers, but any kind of tech--are based in California? How much agriculture is based there? How many natural resources do they have?

More importantly, if one state leaves, how long is it until another one gets the idea to jump ship? Does a state leaving make it more or less likely for another one to leave? What if it becomes two states, do you think that improves the odds that another will leave? What if the federal government comes knocking with the US military? What if the US military refuses to act against their (former) countrymen? What if NH doesn't leave the Union, but all the other New England states do, leaving it almost completely landlocked inside of a foreign country?

This brings up more questions than it answers. The outcome is definately not as clear cut as the "wait for the bastards to come crying to be let back in" response.

- No more roads. Federal funding will stop. They will eventually revert back to two-track dirt. Enjoy that.
- No more US govt. at all. That means no protection from anyone. No military. And no National Guard in case of emergencies.
- No more FEMA, federal emergency aid, CIA/FBI, DOD, FDA......all gone. That's a good thing? Not really. Unemployment just went up 30% overnight.
- No voice. Who's going to listen to a bunch of whiners who just gave up?
- No more big business. I'm not talking about maple syrup either. Businesses won't go to a different "country", when they can avoid all the import/export hassles by putting a factory 2 miles away....with no ocean in the way.

Actually, if you look at my numbers, the loss of federal funds that Vermont currently recieves from the federal government could be totally offset by replacing the federal tax of low-30% with a 19.8% "federation of Vermont" state. That takes care of roads, FEMA, and emergency aid.

Department of Defense is, as I admitted, a very valid point. The Republic of Vermont would need to sign some defensive treaties ASAP. Perhaps with Canada.

As for big business, come on, Kevan. Big business is moving overseas as fast as they can for tax breaks. I'd be more worried about a Republic of Vermont ATTRACTING big business to avoid federal taxes in the States. Also, remember dude, this Vermont we're talking about. WHAT big business?

Also, I would counter-argue that seceeding from the Union would actually INCREASE VT's voice on the global stage, as the state that was so disgusted with their federal leadership that they stepped out of the union.

Ultimately, it's a very permanent solution to a very temporary problem - the fact a jackass cowboy is currently the Commander in Chief. All they have to do is make it to Jan 20th, 2009, and they get what they're after. Still, the numbers played out a lot better for vermont than I thought they would, which sort of makes you wonder just how badly any state "needs" the USA. Regardless how that question is eventually answered, I think the fact it's being asked again and not ust taken for granted is good news.

"...and everything under the sun is in tune, but the sun is eclipsed by the moon."